Apr 17, 2002 By Patty Shultz 3 min read

PITTSBURGH – The screening process for potential jurors, who could ultimately hear the case against a Bullskin Township man, continued Tuesday in federal court. The government prosecutor, defense counsel and U.S. Senior District Judge Maurice B. Cohill Jr., who is overseeing the trial, interviewed 12 women and six men in the ongoing effort to gather a jury pool for the case against Joseph P. Minerd.

Minerd, 46, is charged with malicious destruction of property by means of fire and explosion and causing the Jan. 1, 1999, deaths of Connellsville residents Deana Kay Mitts and her 3-year-old daughter, Kayla Ashley Mitts.

According to Cohill, 64 persons will be chosen for a pool from which a 12-member jury and four alternates will be chosen to hear the matter. In addition to the 12 chosen Monday, 23 men and women will move to the next level.

Because the government is seeking the death penalty in the case, the potential jurors must undergo an initial screening process to determine their understanding of the available penalties and their ability to reach a decision in the matter.

Cohill has instructed 20 juror candidates to appear each day until his established quota has been reached through the interviews.

Each day, the jurist gives introductory remarks and asks generalized questions as to whether they are acquainted with Minerd, his legal counsel or the prosecuting attorney and the investigators.

While five on Tuesday indicated they had some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case through newspaper articles or televised reports, Cohill decided the information did not warrant their immediate dismissal.

Afterwards, each appeared before Cohill and defense and prosecuting attorneys for questioning on an array of topics related to the penalty phase of the trial.

While the media is able to witness the questioning, Cohill has instructed that jurors’ names, addresses or any personal information along with their responses made in the closed-door session not be reported.

Each is asked a battery of questions including whether a strong view on the death penalty is held by the candidate, if there are certain situations where they believe the punishment should be imposed, or if warranted, choose to render a sentence of life without parole.

“Could you bring yourself to impose the death penalty?” asked Cohill of the potential candidates.

Minerd’s legal counsel, attorneys Jay T. McCamic and Richard Kammen, questioned the individuals about their ability to weigh mitigating factors which they may present if their client is found guilty with aggravating factors submitted by the prosecutor.

Mitigating factors are those recognized by the law and offered by the defense as reasons why the death penalty should not be imposed, while aggravating factors support the prosecution’s reasoning for the punishment.

“We have to know what your feelings are,” McCamic explained to the individuals.

Three candidates were dismissed after revealing they could not impose a death sentence, if required, while two others were found to have strong support for the punishment. One person indicated inconsistent views and was dismissed from the jury pool. One individual expressed concerns of financial hardship and was excused from serving on the panel.

Jury selection will continue today at 8:45 a.m.